New Science

It does not take any brains to criticize but it does take brains to provide solutions. So what is your solitions for those two SIMPLE questions? By the way, I do not drink milk. Ha ha. NS It sure does. The description of the 'strong force' would not leave any gaps in the Elemental and isotope nuclei chain. Since it is being promoted as a attractive force ONLY with a very short range, it should act like a gravitational force. The gravitational force is NOT a quantum type of force. There are no quantum mass jumps/energies in the mass bodies observered. NS

You are right Jeff! The BBT is LUDICROUS. Originally derived from the Slipher, Hubble and the Humason observations and wrongly interpreted as a DOPPLER redshift that had to be replaced because it implied a repeat of the geocentric theory that was REFUTED back in the 16th century. So Lemaitraes expansion of space was accepted as the cause of the redshifts. But that still did not convince the skeptics until the CMBR was discovered as a BB remnant radiation. This proves nothing because this radiation is supposed to have a redshift of 1000. This radiation is not a light radiation but a heat radiation similar to an ideal gas since it is expanding with space as a gas would. Besides, it is just a NOISE radiation that tells me that is is a gas. I could give other reas9ons for discrediting the BBT but I think that should be enough. NS

Now that is an example of JAWS wide open. You should compete in the 'hot dog eating contest'. Ha ha. Aboit trolls:.I do not fish. I quit a long time ago. As I said BEFORE, my post are based on real science like the CON'n Laws, Exp'ts and Obser'ns. Now how about you experts answering a couple of question? What science PRECEDED the BBT? .......The bible creation theory is incorrect. What is driving the expansion of space? Dark energy is incorrect. I asked 'poo' those questions and he appealed to others for help. Ha ha. NS More profanity! NS

The only thing I see here is a lot of insulting remarks. I do not smoke 'crack'. or use pot, so your remarks are wrong. As far as the quacks go, I admire those ducks. Cute. I do not care about the fangs and claws of the lion and the 'one god concept' promoted by the old testament. To me, jaws are uigly. FYI, jaws is waging war against HANDS (apes). That is why the OT discrimiates against the Evolution of humans. Going back to the 16th centutry, The church had the 'inquisition' boards that represent our 'review' boards today. Nuff said NS

Does psuedoscience require these scientific rules? If the post is accepted as science, it does not belong here in Psuedoscience. Seems to me that this thread would have more freedom for its existence. Besides, all my posts are cited on real evidence like I said. Conservation Laws, experiments and observations. NS

To All I have checked that book by Semat, page 588 and find no omissions of stable missing isotopes except the two (5 and 8) that are missing. This is confirmed by the table above. What appears to be missing isotopes in some elements are supplied by the previous element or the following elements. Check on each element where there appears to be a missing isotope and you will see that it is present in the one before or after the apparent gap in this chain of stable elements and isotopes. Thank you for your patience. NS

Hey, I admire ducks. If quacks are not credible, than who is? The chauvinist lion and his followers that practice the 'one god concept' that constitutes slavery? Incidentally, that last post of mine is a DIFFERENT version of my real science. So there is no repitition!. And regarding the BBT, I can promote a dozen different versions of falsifying the BB. So throw away your religious BADGE and accept others opinions that can make sense. NS NS

OK, so it does say 'one day'. But you will notice that all the white boxes represent NON existant isotopes. So 5 and 8 do not exist or are shown to be non existant. Who said anything about Helium 3? NS

I discovered a table of the isotopes. See below http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope_table_%28complete%29 Notice in that table that the Helium nucleus has no isotopes with a half life of more than ONE second. Notice the side menu color chart on each side of the elements. NS

Iwould like to revise that expansion above as an added expansion that adds up to the Hubble constant of 72^6 meters per second. So when you multiply the 72^6 meters x the lifespan of the BB in seconds, it gives the BBT a size of 3.4^9 light years in extent. This is still a miniscule size when the HDFN can see more than 25 billion light years deep. So this is another example of the unrealistic probability of the BB concept. NS

To All: My article was directed about AMN's 5 and 8. 8 has a half life of a small fraction of one tenth of a second? And 5 has a fraction of ^-22 seconds? This is hardly a stable state if you consider that to be an existence. On the other hand. with the description of the 'strong force', these 2 AMN's should be completely stable because these nuclei would be clumps of nucleons as shown in some physicss books. So I still say that the strong force is fallaceous and should be replaced by a Quntum type as I have described. Thank you for understanding this reality. NS

I would like to add the fact that this is an example of Arp's RS Anomaly. The reason for this is that the current Virgo Cluster RS's are based on ordinary galaxies that have lower Red Shift 'ENERGIES than the galactic RS's that were derived from the HDFN where RS's of 7+ were observed. So we can say that the ones observed in that deep field are the high energy QUASARS rather than the ordinary galaxies that the Malmquist bias eliminates. So this would be further proof of the reality of Arps RS Anomaly. NS

You do not use kms in your calculations because the SI unit is the 'meter'. Secondly, you do not include seconds in the calculation because the calculations are based on one second. So to include the megaparsec in the expansion of space, you just divide 72^6 meters by a mpc in meters +72^6 to get the correct rate of expansion. This equals 2.33^-15 meters per second. The point here is that the Hubble expantion is spread out over a mpc. NS

No, U235 does not exist in isolation. It has to be purufied through a process of extraction from uranium. NS

I am talking about the expansion of the BBT. The latest value for this was extracted from the WMAP calculations and it is 70.1 kms/mpc/s . If you include the mpc in the expansion of the BB, then the true rate of expansion would be 3.24^-23 meters/mpc/second. This would not be a detectable expansion. NS

What I am talking about is whether there is a quantity of stable isotopes in 'natural abundance. U235 has none in natural abundance. So all isotopes of U235 decay. Although a couple have decaying halflifes in billions of years. I think these are extracted from Uranium ores. NS

I asked you how do you incorporate the mpc into a formula. Is the BB expanding at 72 kms/s or 72kms + a mpc /second. Both cannot be right. So which one is right? NS

Cancelled' .................NS I have a book here authored by John Emsley entitled 'The Elements' and printed by the Oxford Press. It is the most complete book on this subject. I have another book by Henry Semat entitled 'An Introduction to Atomic and Nuclear Physics. On page 588 that lists all the Atomic Mass Numbers of the isotopes and the elements and it showws that numbers 5 and 8 are missing. These are the only numbers missing. The Emsley book lists Lithium as having just two stable isotopes. One at 92.5% (#7) and the ither at 7.5% (6). This adds up to 100%. So any others would be completely unstable. Regarding Berylium, The book lists three isotopes with #9 as being 100% stable and the other 2 (7 and 10) as unstable. So those you dredged up are no doubt just done by human experimentors. I explained why they cannot exist because of EM intewrastions while you use math that is a fabrication of the human intellect. With the strong force explanation, the nuclei would clump together as some illustrations show but this is a human creation. My visualization uses the EM forces interactions that I consider are more realistic. NS . .

I will try to find an URL on these isotopes. What graphs are you talking about? Post the URL. NS

Well, the constant is quoted as being an expansion of 72 kms/mpc/s (consensus). So the expansion is for every second. The question here is how do you incorporate the mpc into any formula? NS My post on the Flat Space universe (former SSU) is based on the LAWS of CONSERVATION, the M-M EXP and ARPS RS Anomaly. I cannot think of anything that is more scientific rather than accepting a CosmoGONY universe. This is a matter of faith in science. NS

I just mentioned that the SN1a's are a poor example for measuring distances because their error margins are the largest of the 8 different methods used in that URL above. That post on the different methods were being taught by a university in the UK?, I think. This Dark Energy was a serindipidy discovery by the researchers that included Santage and Permutter to establish a precise Hubble constant.. NS

The Hubble Constant is not an actual constant but one measured by a variety of methods. The consensus, as far as I know, is 72 kms/second. NS Originally, the universe was split between two factions . One for 50 Kms/mpc/sec while the other was promoting a 100 Kms/mpc/s rate. So this established the age of the universe as being from 20 billion years old to 10 billion years old. So this was comprimised at 75 kms/mpc/s and an age of 15 bioon years. So the latest figures from WMAP is that the universe is 14 billion years old and the Hubble valus as 70.1. Since I believe in a Flat Soace SSU, I do not give any credibility to these findings and previous accepted values for our universe. I just follow the current opinions to keep in touch with the latest news. NS

If you are confused about AMN, then that means Atomic Mass Number. This number includes all the nucleons in the elementary chain like the protons and the neutrons. When considering all the elements and their isotopes, the only AMN's missing are 5 and 8. This is a 'glaring' omission that should not exist. NS

I have mentioned here a number of times that an electron ABSORBS a photon before it radiates a photon. This is obvious in measuring the absorption lines for determining the redshifts that is more precise that using the emission lines. That is my opinion. NS The Hubble Constant has a given distance in seconds also. For every expansion of the HC, a seconf is involved. So the constant represents both distance and TIME. Incidentally, how would you incorporate the mpc into determining the size of the current BBU?